On 3/14/22 16:14, Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen wrote:
> Am Mo., 14. März 2022 um 17:06 Uhr schrieb Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe
> <xxxxxx@sigwinch.xyz>:
>>
>> Hi siiky,
>>
>> On 2022-03-13 22:46 +0000, siiky wrote:
>>> On 13 March 2022 22:29:28 UTC, Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe <xxxxxx@sigwinch.xyz> wrote:
>>>> On 2022-03-06 22:42 +0000, Amirouche wrote:
>>>>> I vote for kappa.
>>>>
>>>> Unless there are objections, I think I've settled on kappa.
>>>> I haven't found any other uses of that name in the libraries of the
>>>> major Scheme implementations, so I think it's reasonable.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm curious to know the origin. Is it the letter, the meme, or the youkai[0]? (:
>>
>> It's just the Latinized spelling-out of κ (which, as with λ, could be
>> a synonym in Schemes with full Unicode names).  The intended mnemonic
>> is "kappa/κ as in kurry".
>>
>>> And how would it be used? (kappa (...) ...)
>>
>> Yes.  It's just a replacement name for lambda*.
>>
>>> and (define-kappa (foo ...) ...) ?
>>
>> I still prefer define-curried for the define wrapper.
>
> So why not "curried" instead of "kappa" then? I think this also helps
> people who don't know SRFI 232 to understand what is roughly going on.
> "kappa" is just as good (or bad) as "wolfgang" when it comes to
> carrying information. :)

I agree with "unifying" both names, similarly to the optional arguments
SRFI.

So, although I don't have a preference for either, I think that if
you're going with `kappa`, `define-kappa` makes sense; and if you're
going with `define-curried` (or `define-curry`), then `curried` (or
`curry`) for the `lambda` analogue makes more sense.

(I have a stronger preference for shorter names than I have for any one
specific name)